Why Russia Needs Alaska

In Part one, I detailed how Obama is the right communist at precisely the right time to bring about the demise of this country. Part one revealed how Obama was born and bred to be a communist and we see the evidence of this through his East German Stasi tactics within his daily routine as evidenced by his help in passing the NDAA and other draconian unconstitutional legislation. In Part one, I also detailed how prominent Russian defectors have tried to warn America that Russia will rise up and attack the United States.

It is clear that any Russian attack upon the United States will come through Alaska and I am now of the opinion that Russia will not wait for us to attack Iran before attacking the United States. The following paragraphs will demonstrate why Alaska is so vitally important to the fulfillment of Russia’s communist plans for world domination.

The Heartland Theory

British geographer and military historian, Sir Halford MacKinder, in1904, wrote an article that changed how politicians and military men viewed the world. It was a perception that influenced Hitler to send his troops eastward in an attack upon Russia in 1940. It was also the driving force that led to the underpinnings for superpower foreign policy which guided foreign policy for both sides during the Cold War. The theory that had so influenced nearly three generations of strategists was called simply, the Heartland Theory.

Basically, Mackinder’s Heartland Theory viewed geo-political military history as a struggle between land-based and sea-based powers. Mackinder believed the world had become a “closed” system, with virtually no new lands left for the Europeans powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without creating chaos elsewhere. According to the theory the common denominator for world conflict has been reduced to sea powers vs. land-based powers which would subsequently struggle for dominance of the world, and the ultimate victor would be in a position to set up a world empire. The determining factor in this struggle was physical geography; “Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls”.

Containing Russia Is the Key to World Peace

From Mackinder’s perspective, Soviet Russia had to be contained within the heartland. Mackinder’s believed that whosoever controlled Eurasia, controlled the world, so long as the controller had access to useable ports. The problem for Russia is that they have so few usable ports thus impacting commerce and the movement of men and material in a time of war. So long as Russian could be prevented from being a major sea power, the forces of the United States and Western Europe were safe. However, if Russia should become a sea power in conjunction with its massive land-based power, Russia could rule the world.

Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms the Heartland Theory, in his book, A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the US-Soviet Contest (pp 22-23), n which he echoed the words of Mackinder when he stated that “Whoever controls Eurasia dominates the globe. If the Soviet Union captures the peripheries of this landmass … it would not only win control of vast human, economic and military resources, but also gain access to the geostrategic approaches to the Western Hemisphere – the Atlantic and the Pacific.” For Russia, controlling the peripheries of the landmass means controlling Alaska and having access to its ports. This would make Russia the world’s most preeminent land and sea power and the world would have to pay homage to the new global master.

Stalin’s Secret Plans to Invade Alaska In 1951

In 1999, at a conference held at Yale University, previously-secret Russian documents revealed that Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin had undergone extensive planning in preparation to invade North America as early as 1951. The event was one of a series of programs sponsored by the Washington D.C.-based Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), which monitors new documents pertaining to the Cold War. The Yale conference centered on Stalin’s relationship with the United States.

These documents, from the Cold War, revealed that Stalin had a definitive plan to attack Alaska in 1951-52 and had undergone major military preparations in anticipation of the invasion. Russia has always considered itself to be landlocked and this served as the major motivation for Russia’s planned incursion which would have given Russia access to good sea ports. Stalin subsequently died and the plans were abandoned, at least temporarily.

Suspicious Happenings In Alaska

In light of the evidence, it is abundantly clear that there are clear economic, political and military reasons why the Russians would want to occupy Alaska. My interest in this topic surfaced quite serendipitously as a couple of listeners to my radio program sent me information on the Agenda 21 invasion of small Alaska communities, and oh, by the way, they also reported that they were seeing Russian troops in their respective communities.

The sighting of Russian troops in small Alaskan towns such Ketchikan, Alaska, got my undivided attention. Ketchikan is the southeastern most city in Alaska. With an estimated population of 8,050. Ketchikan is the fifth-most populous city in the state. Another area where there are civilian sightings of Russian troops is in Sitka, Alaska. The City of Sitka, formerly New Archangel under Russian rule, is located on Baranof Island and the southern half of Chichagof Island in the Alexander Archipelago of the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, one military veteran reports seeing Russian submarines, on a frequent basis, just off the coast. Further, there are civilian reports of Russian vehicles and troops moving through Alaska north of Anchorage. These are only anecdotal accounts and further proof is required in to validate these eyewitness accounts. Yet, there are indeed verifiable, reported media accounts of Russian troops on American soil.

The presence of Russian troops on American soil is very troublesome. America does not need to rely on the anecdotal accounts of Alaskan civilians to be concerned about the presence of Russian troops on American soil. Russian commandos are also “training” at Fort Carson, in Colorado Springs since last spring. Why is this concerning? The United States is about to go to war with Iran for selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold instead of the Petrodollar. Russia and China have threatened to nuke the United States if it dares to attack Iran. Russia is, and should be considered to be an enemy of the United States.

A Stunning Act of Treason

Obama has given away seven strategic, oil-rich Alaskan islands to the Russians at a time when we could be going to war with Russia. At minimum, the oil, alone, from these Islands should be considered to be a military asset. I remain very concerned that these seven islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea could also be used as a military staging area from which to invade Alaska and defend its new claims of the mineral rich resources at the North Pole.

The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake, related to these seven Islands. Didn’t Obama promise energy independence. Didn’t this proven communist president promise to help the economy bounce back by lessening our dependence on foreign oil? And despite our ongoing economic depression, Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline a few months ago. Perhaps, very soon, America will not need the Keystone Pipeline because Alaska will not be remaining as a viable member of the United States. To those who think that Obama would never sacrifice Alaska to Russia, then please tell us “conspiracy theorists” why he would give away seven Islands, one as big as Delaware, with great natural resources, to the Russians? This is a case of bold-faced treason plain and simple. Obama and his cabinet should be arrested, tried and sentenced as we would with any traitor. Yet, there is more.

The Giveaway of Alaska

There exists documented facts which support the reasons why Alaska should be placed on high alert.

Russia recently sent four brigades to the Arctic. The Arctic can be used as a staging area for the invasion of the North Pole to protect its recent mineral claims, but more importantly, this area of the Arctic could serve as a base of operations from which to invade Alaska with the help of pre-positioned assets within the state.

In March of 2012, with a microphone left on. Obama made an unguarded comment to Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev to be “more lenient on nuclear issues” because he could be more flexible “after the November election”. Does more flexible mean killing the Keystone Pipeline prior to giving away seven rich Alaskan Islands to the Russians? Does more flexible mean letting the Russians train in Colorado Springs and in Alaska? Does being more flexible mean compromising our defense of Alaska?

More Treason From Obama

Although some journalists have said that they suspect that Obama is preparing to give away Alaska to Russia. I previously did not see how a sitting president could do such a thing and remain in office. However, if Russia were to militarily seize Alaska, that would provide Obama with a plausible excuse in which he claims America was caught off guard and the danger was unforeseen. Obama could best accomplish this by weakening the defenses of Alaska and the evidence is supportive of this suspicion. The evidence does not support a timetable, however, I would guess that this event may transpire in Obama’s last year in office, or possibly in the lame duck session where he cannot be held accountable. This article will hopefully remove Obama’s ability to excuse away the notion that America lost Alaska because it go caught with its proverbial pants down.

The giving away of seven strategic, oil-rich Islands is a good start to support a claim of treason because Obama is purposely weakening the defense of Alaska. Also, local residents along the Alaskan coast have reported to me that the massive over flights along the coast have all but ceased. The F-22’s have disappeared. The Air Force says the flights have been suspended because of oxygen concerns which are impacting the pilots. Then shouldn’t the flights be replaced by F-16’s? What about national security?These over flights have been a staple of Alaskan defense since the Cold War. If we are close to war with Iran and its ally, Russia, then shouldn’t we beefing up our patrols in Alaska?

Recently the ATF asked for gun registration records in Alaska. Perhaps the Russians need to know, in advance, where the most civilian opposition will come from when they take over Alaska.

The last thing that country should do on a potential front line area is to close military facilities and bases, yet, this is exactly what is happening in Alaska. Obama and the Base Realignment and Closure Commission have been closing bases and/or reducing base operations all through Alaska. It has gotten so bad that the Alaskan Governor hired a lobbyist to prevent military reduction.

Two years ago, a prominent Russia Professor predicted the end of the United States. The professor stated that Alaska would return to the control of Russia and that the United States would be split into six pieces. John McCain recently said “I think it’s very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire.”

There is also a tunnel from Russia to Alaska being constructed. Are we funding our own demise with our tax money which is designed to set up Russia’s future? Last summer, Russia challenged west coast detection capabilities of our military by making provocative moves with their submarines inside of our territorial waters. Also, in a stunning move, Putin banned adoptions of Russian children by American parents. Could it be likely that he is looking out for the Russian adoptees as this is a reaction to what Putin knows is coming?

Conclusion

Should we be closing bases on the potential front lines? Should we be failing to patrol off of our coast? Should we allow the unchallenged sightings of surfaced Russian subs close to the coastline? Any one of these events should be considered to be a serious national security concern. Yet, the media and Obama act as if all is well.

There are a lot of dots on this wall to connect. However, there is one monumental dot to seriously consider. Subsequently, I have some final questions. If Obama is willing to give away seven oil-rich Islands in the area of Alaska, during these tough economic times, then what exactly isn’t he capable of doing to the United States? Is the sacrifice of Alaska so far-fetched in light of these other considerations? Aren’t the apparent Russian plans to seize Alaska part of the fulfillment of the Heartland Theory in which Mother Russia propels itself in the status of the world’s super power by making itself both a land and sea power through the seizure of Alaska?

When someone can provide a plausible set of answers to the questions that I have raised here, then I will continue to sound the alarm that “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.”